Case Digest (G.R. No. 212738)
Facts:
People of the Philippines; Atty. Anna Liza R. Juan‑Barrameda, Mischaella Savari, and Marlon Savari v. Rufino Ramoy and Dennis Padilla, G.R. No. 212738, March 09, 2022, the Supreme Court First Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (Atty. Juan‑Barrameda, Mischaella and Marlon Savari) served as pollwatchers during the October 25, 2010 Barangay elections. On October 25, 2010 petitioners Mischaella and Marlon filed a complaint against Paul Ramones Borja alleging solicitation of votes and distribution of election paraphernalia inside a polling place. On January 17, 2011 petitioners Mischaella and Marlon filed another complaint charging respondents Rufino Ramoy and Dennis Padilla (and five others, including Borja) with conspiracy in those acts; a Joint Supplemental Complaint Affidavit of the three petitioners followed that same day.
On February 18, 2011 Assistant City Prosecutor Irene S. Resurreccion found probable cause and recommended filing informations. Three criminal informations were filed in RTC Quezon City, Branch 101 as Criminal Cases Nos. Q‑11‑169067 (soliciting votes/propaganda on election day within polling place and distributing paraphernalia), Q‑11‑169068 (partisan political activity before campaign period, dated Sept. 25, 2010), and Q‑11‑169069 (similar charge dated Oct. 10, 2010). Defendants moved for reconsideration before the prosecutor, sought DOJ review, and filed an omnibus Motion to Quash in the RTC arguing duplicity and that the facts did not constitute an offense. The DOJ denied review on January 30, 2012.
In an Order dated February 15, 2012 the RTC denied the Motion to Quash, holding the informations charge unlawful electioneering/partisan political activity and that conjunctive phrasing denoted continuity, not separate offenses; a Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 28, 2012, and the respondents were arraigned on December 4, 2012. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On September 27, 2013 the CA granted the Rule 65 petition, reversed and set aside the RTC Orders of February 15 and November 28, 2012, and quashed all three informations (CA-G.R. SP No. 128470), finding that the inf...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court should entertain this Rule 45 petition reviewing interlocutory orders and, if so, whether the Court of Appeals correctly found grave abuse of discretion in the RTC's denial of the Motion to Quash.
- Whether the Informations in Criminal Cases Nos. Q‑11‑169068 and Q‑11‑169069 must be quashed because they charge more than one offense, or because the facts alleged do not constitute an offense under present law.
- Whether the Information in Criminal Case No. Q‑11‑169067 is duplicitous for charging both solicitation/propaganda inside the polling place and unlawful/unauthorized presence therein, and whether it must be quashed.
- Whether the quashal ordered by the Court as to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)